Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:44:30.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limits on the Use of Judges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

F. G. Brennan
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional function of the judicial process in adjudicating upon the existence of rights and obligations between defined persons or classes of persons will continue to be discharged by the judiciary. There are risks involved in an extension of the role of judges beyond that traditional function. Mr Justice Brennan argues that these risks must in appropriate cases be accepted, otherwise the judiciary itself may become irrelevant to the community which it serves.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1978, pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 (1972) 116 Pt 1 Solicitors Journal 149.

2 See Right Honourable Sir Leslie Scarman: “The Judge-A Man for All Seasons” (1977) Vol. 267 “Round Talk” 230.

3 Freely acknowledged is the distinctive contribution the courts make to the social order. Horowitz, The Courts and Social Policy (1977).

4 In 1941 Chief Justice Stone wrote:

The Court ... has of late suffered from overmuch publicity. After all, its only claim to public confidence is the thoroughness and fidelity with which it does its daily task. . .. The majority are new in their positions and not too familiar with the traditions of the Court which have stood it in such good stead during the 150 years of its history. The upshot of all this is that I am anxious to see the Court removed more from the public eye except on decision day....

Quoted in Mason, “Extra-Judicial Work for Judges: The Views of Chief Justice Stone” (1953) 67 Harvard Law Review 193, 200.

5 (1970) 123 C.L.R. 361.

6 Id. 374.

7 Cox, , “The New Dimensions of Constitutional Adjudication” (1976) 51 Washington Law Review 791, 827Google Scholar.

8 Jowell, , Law and Bureaucracy (1975) 161Google Scholar.

9 R. v. Kirby; ex parte The Boilermakers Society of Australia (1955-1956) 94 C.L.R. 254.

10 Id. 315.

11 (1957) 100 C.L.R. 277, 291.

12 (1974) 130 C.L.R. 87.

13 Id. 94.

14 Sanders v.Sanders (1967) 116 C.L.R. 366, 376 per Barwick C.J.

15 R. v. The Trade Practices Tribunal; ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd (1970) 123 C.L.R. 361 particularly per Windeyer J., 401.

16 Cominos v. Cominos (1972) 127 C.L.R. 588, especially per Gibbs J., 599.

17 United Engineering Workers Union v. Devanayagam [1968] A.C. 356.

18 [1968] A.C. 356.

19 Id. 384.

20 Jowell, op. cit. 27.

21 Horowitz, , “The Courts as Guardians of the Public Interest” (1977) 37 Public Administration Review 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 (1962) 369 U.S. 186, 217. See also the dissenting judgment of Frankfurter J. at 266 especially at 287.

23 Letter dated 20 July 1942, quoted in Mason, op. cit. 203.

24 Horowitz, , The Courts and Social Policy (1977) 278Google Scholar.

25 Id. 266-267.

26 Scott v. Scott [1913] A.C. 417;McPherson v. McPherson [1936] A.C. 177.

27 R. v. Thames Magistrates' Court; ex parte Polemis [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1371.

28 Davies v. Ryan (1933) 50 C.L.R. 379.

29 Johnson v. Miller (1937) 59 C.L.R. 467.

30 Allen v. Allen and Bell [1894] P. 248; Blaise v. Blaise [1969] P. 54.

31 [1965] A.C. 201.

32 Id. 219.

33 Letter dated 14 August 1923 from Sir William Irvine to Sir Arthur Robinson, quoted in Mcinerney, The Appointment of Judges to Commissions of Enquiry and Other Extra-Judicial Activities, a paper delivered to the 1974 Annual Judicial Conference.

34 Statement of the Victorian Bar Council 1954, quoted in Mcinerney, op. cit.

35 Milirrpum v. Nabalco Pty Ltd (1971) 17 F.L.R. 141.

36 [1964] 1 W.L.R. 219.

37 Hayburn's case (1972) 2 U.S. 409.

38 Baker v. Carr (1962) 369 U.S. 186, 204.

39 United States v. Fruehauf (1961) 365 U.S. 146, 157.

40 In re the Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 C.L.R. 257.

41 (1968) 392 U.S. 83.

42 Id. 94.

43 See Holdsworth, History of English Law v, 351. Zamir, The Declaratory Judgement, 46 and cf. a more recent debate: 46 L.Q.R. 169 and 47 L.Q.R. 43.

44 The Queensland Money Bills case (1886), Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd ed.) IX, par. 883.

45 In the Matter of the Representatives of the Island of Grenada and the Hon. John Sanderson, Chief Justice (1847) 6 Moo. P.C.C. 38, 13 E.R. 596.

46 In re The Initiative and Referendum Act [1919] A.C. 935.

47 Cf. Horowitz, , The Courts and Social Policy (1977) 258Google Scholar.

48 Cox, , “The New Dimensions of Constitutional Adjudication” (1976) 51 Washington Law Review 791Google Scholar.